Is The 2-2-1-1-1 Format Better Or 2-3-2?

[twinkie13]

I like the 1st format.....Stern implemented the latter I think. I bring it up because I had a discussion with someone today that favored the 2-3-2......a younger guy.

I thought, it being so obvious that the current format favors the team with the better record, that no one else disagreed.

Some real NBA junkies here, so I wanted some takes.

Discuss:shake2:

 

[RetroVK]

I like 2-2-1-1-1 better.

It's interesting because you would think it would be hard for the presumed lesser team (kind of depends on the conference strength too though I guess) to win three home games in a row in the middle but if they did that is quite a bit of pressure on the team with HCA

 

[cogenman]

2-2-1-1-1 no doubt imo.

With the 2-3-2 if the team without home field happens to steal one of the first two, they could potentially close it out in their house. What kind of a home court advantage is that?

 

[BetCrimes1984]

With the 2-3-2 if the team without home field happens to steal one of the first two, they could potentially close it out in their house. What kind of a home court advantage is that?

Precisely, but the better way to put it imo is simply this:

Through the first 5 games, the road team has HCA.

WTF? Over the history of the NBA playoffs, game 5 winners end up winning their series over 80% of the time, and the 2-3-2 format rewards the venue for that crucial game to the team which hasn't earned HCA for the finals? What kind of insanity is that? Obviously the 2-2-1-1-1 format gifts game 5 to the team that's earned the right to host such an important game.

That's never mind the fact that the first and second venue that the finals are capable of being won in (in the case of a 3-0 or 3-1 series scoreline) is, once again, the venue of the team that hasn't earned HCA for the finals overall (theoretically it should be easier to win a series or defer being eliminated from a series on your HC). With the 2-2-1-1-1 format at least the first 2 occasions the finals can be won are evenly split between the venues of the 2 teams involved.

 

[B.A.R.]

Going back to regular format was correct.

STERN started this in 80's due to LA-Boston LA Philly etc(travel)...

Now back then, the Finals concluded way before July 4th. With the current playoff schedule, it would have never been an issue and never needed to be changed.

 

[B.A.R.]

2-2-1-1-1 no doubt imo.

With the 2-3-2 if the team without home field happens to steal one of the first two, they could potentially close it out in their house. What kind of a home court advantage is that?

I was trying to think(without looking up) how many times this has happened.

The only one I came up with was 2004 Detroit. They coulda easily swept anyways so a moot point.

1990 Detroit and 1991 Chicago both split at home then swept all 3 games out West.

* ADD 2001 LA Lakers to the middle 3 road sweep

 

[B.A.R.]

I was trying to think(without looking up) how many times this has happened.

The only one I came up with was 2004 Detroit. They coulda easily swept anyways so a moot point.

1990 Detroit and 1991 Chicago both split at home then swept all 3 games out West.

* ADD 2001 LA Lakers to the middle 3 road sweep

2012 Miami also

 

[nbafan88]

The 2-3-2 format gave the team with HCA a big advantage.

 

[Gorgolon Lives]

Like the 1-1-1....But do not like this extra day of travel.

 

[Lareux]

The 2-3-2 format gave the team with HCA a big advantage.

It was the opposite with the 2-3-2 format, it gave the lower seeded team a possible advantage if they stole one of the first two on the road.

Only in that format, which is why it's wrong and surprising it was ever approved to begin with in any sport, can the lower seed win the series and play more games at home than on the road. At no time should a series be able to be ended where the lower seeded team played 3 games at home, and the higher seeded team only played 2...that is completely eliminating the higher seeds' home court advantage.

Even if the teams simply hold serve at home, the lower seeded team could have a 3-2 series lead after 5 games...without having to win a game on the road...yes the last 2 games are at the higher seeded team's court, but they shouldn't be in a position to be down 3-2 if they haven't lost a game at home.

 

[KJ]

But how often did that actually happen? Seems like not much, and if the higher seeded team just got one of three on the road, which shouldn't be much to ask, they had the clear advantage.

That said, I prefer the current format much more. Don't care about travel in the least.

 

[Lareux]

But how often did that actually happen? Seems like not much, and if the higher seeded team just got one of three on the road, which shouldn't be much to ask, they had the clear advantage.

That said, I prefer the current format much more. Don't care about travel in the least.

Right, not sure it happened much at all (if any times outside of the one posted above)....that's not the point though really. The fact that it could have even possibly happened makes no sense at all. In no scenario should a playoff series be set up where the possibility exists that the series is clinched by the lower seed and that lower seed played more home games than the higher seed. It literally defeats the purpose of the home court/field advantage.

 

[BJPLAYER]

2-2-1-1-1....2-3-2 is too weird

 

[twinkie13]

It was the opposite with the 2-3-2 format, it gave the lower seeded team a possible advantage if they stole one of the first two on the road.

Only in that format, which is why it's wrong and surprising it was ever approved to begin with in any sport, can the lower seed win the series and play more games at home than on the road. At no time should a series be able to be ended where the lower seeded team played 3 games at home, and the higher seeded team only played 2...that is completely eliminating the higher seeds' home court advantage.

Even if the teams simply hold serve at home, the lower seeded team could have a 3-2 series lead after 5 games...without having to win a game on the road...yes the last 2 games are at the higher seeded team's court, but they shouldn't be in a position to be down 3-2 if they haven't lost a game at home.

yes, that scenario is pretty odd and wrong for a team with the "AD"

 

[RetroVK]

It was the opposite with the 2-3-2 format, it gave the lower seeded team a possible advantage if they stole one of the first two on the road.

Only in that format, which is why it's wrong and surprising it was ever approved to begin with in any sport, can the lower seed win the series and play more games at home than on the road. At no time should a series be able to be ended where the lower seeded team played 3 games at home, and the higher seeded team only played 2...that is completely eliminating the higher seeds' home court advantage.

Even if the teams simply hold serve at home, the lower seeded team could have a 3-2 series lead after 5 games...without having to win a game on the road...yes the last 2 games are at the higher seeded team's court, but they shouldn't be in a position to be down 3-2 if they haven't lost a game at home.

Very well articulated

 

[nbafan88]

It was the opposite with the 2-3-2 format, it gave the lower seeded team a possible advantage if they stole one of the first two on the road.

Only in that format, which is why it's wrong and surprising it was ever approved to begin with in any sport, can the lower seed win the series and play more games at home than on the road. At no time should a series be able to be ended where the lower seeded team played 3 games at home, and the higher seeded team only played 2...that is completely eliminating the higher seeds' home court advantage.

Even if the teams simply hold serve at home, the lower seeded team could have a 3-2 series lead after 5 games...without having to win a game on the road...yes the last 2 games are at the higher seeded team's court, but they shouldn't be in a position to be down 3-2 if they haven't lost a game at home.

Forget the ifs. Judge it from before the series starting.

Winning three straight games is very unlikely. And bunching those home games in a row is not fair IMO.... It doesn't make any sense to have the 2-3-2 format when the rest of the playoffs aren't that way and the teams have chartered flights.

 

[Lareux]

Forget the ifs. Judge it from before the series starting.

Winning three straight games is very unlikely. And bunching those home games in a row is not fair IMO....

But you HAVE to account for the ifs when you're talking about structuring a series. The format HAS to favor the higher seeded team, that's the entire point of home court/field advantage. Like you just said "judge it from before the series starts"....the only thing you have to go on at that point, is the 'ifs.'

In any event, there should never be the chance for a series to be won by the lower seeded team where that team would have played more home games than the higher seeded team...it seems like just basic logic at that point.

If you think that bunching those home games together isn't fair (I'd agree), then why did you think the 2-3-2 format was a big advantage for the higher seeded team?

 

[nbafan88]

Because it's difficult to win 3 straight games?

i agree with all your points as well.... Just going more in depth than necessary lol

 

[KJ]

Because I don't think any lower seed should win 3 straight games at home or on a playground. Agree it's a big advantage to the better seed.

But still prefer the current format.

 

[Lareux]

Because it's difficult to win 3 straight games?

Sure, but the chances of winning 3 in a row are higher at home than on the road. And that's exactly what that 2-3-2 format does is give the lower seeded team a greater chance to win 3 games in a row...and somehow carry a 3-2 series advantage into game 6 without having won a game on the road.

 

[Lareux]

Because I don't think any lower seed should win 3 straight games at home or on a playground. Agree it's a big advantage to the better seed.

But still prefer the current format.

So because it's tough to win 3 games in a row, it's an advantage for the higher seeded team to play 3 games on the road as opposed to the lower seeded team having the advantage of playing those games at home? It was not an advantage for the higher seeded team under the 2-3-2 format...it really makes little sense.

We're also only talking about the Finals, where the "lower seed" isn't necessarily that much worse than the "higher seed" at that point. The NBA used to use the 2-2-1-1-1 format all playoffs until the Finals if I'm not mistaken (and nbafan I guess, as he just pointed that out).

 

[KJ]

Yep, think the chances of winning at least one of three on the road are very, very high and then it's smooth sailing bringing it home for a couple. Difference between winning two in a row at home and three is monumental in my mind...split at home to start, get one on the road and all the pressure is on the lower seeded team. It's all about pressure...again, we're talking about the lower of the two seeds having basically three must-win games at home.

 

[Lareux]

Yep, think the chances of winning at least one of three on the road are very, very high and then it's smooth sailing bringing it home for a couple. Difference between winning two in a row at home and three is monumental in my mind...split at home to start, get one on the road and all the pressure is on the lower seeded team. It's all about pressure...again, we're talking about the lower of the two seeds having basically three must-win games at home.

Split at home, win one on the road...and head home for Games 6 and 7 down in the series 3-2. What if that higher seed won game 5? Then the odds of them winning game 6 and 7 have gone down significantly, because your contention is that it's nearly impossible to win 3 games in a row, correct?

The pressure is supposed to be on the lower seeded team...it's supposed to be more difficult for them to win the series...that's why they are the lower seeded team and the higher seeded team gets more games at home.

 

[KJ]

I like the current format, so just leave it alone.

Just firmly believe it's more fair than the previous, and I think that 2-3-2 format firmly favored the higher seeded team. Didn't say you have to agree, but I know I'm not alone.

 

[Lareux]

I like the current format, so just leave it alone.

Just firmly believe it's more fair than the previous, and I think that 2-3-2 format firmly favored the higher seeded team. Didn't say you have to agree, but I know I'm not alone.

We all seem to like the current format (and we should, it's the right way to do it), I'm not sure anyone is advocating for them to change anything.

I know you're not alone, it just seems like logic and history show that playing games at home is more beneficial than on the road...and if you get 3 of them in a row (with a chance to win a series by taking one game on the road) as the lower seeded team it certainly has to be more of a benefit to the lower seeded team than the higher seeded team.

All we hear about is "hold serve at home" when talking about 7 game series. Teams are expected to win at home, and that's certainly more of the narrative than it being difficult to win 3 games in a row.